The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1887-02-16
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,.

Discussion and Passage of the Reynolds
Temperance Bill.
Representative Ackman offered prayer in the
House, yesterday.
Mr.. Harleys bill to amend an act concerning
change of channel of streams was ordered en-
crossed.
The Reynoldss bill repeating the telephone law
was read a third time
Mr.. Cox of Miamis opposed it because he be-
lieved it was only in the interest of the tele
phone company.
Mr. Montgomery OF Owen, from the commit
tee on corporations. spoke in its favor as being
measure in the interest of the people
Mr. Gardiner spoke in the same strain.
Mr. Foster followed the line of argument of
Mr.. Cox in opposition to the bill, as he believed
the mass of the people did not wish the law re-
pealed. He believed the service had been run
down because the novelty of the telephone had
worn off.
Mr. Reynolds said that he introduced the bill
at the request of nearly every telephone user in
his county. They told him that the operation
of the law had injured their business. He said
the House already had bill to tax the telephone
companies. The present law does not reach the
Bell Telephone Company. but only snb-compa-
ny in Indiana
Mr.. Stubolefeld followed Mr.. REYNOLDS with a
| short speech in favor of the bill.
Mr.. Scott moved the previous question, which
was seconded, and vote taken on the passage
| of the bill, resulting-yeas SO, nays 30
Mr.. Van Slyke introduced resolution, which
| was adopted; granting to members of the G. A.
r. visiting the city the privileges ofthe floor.
| The srec;al order was the temperance bill.
Mr. Pastor offered an amendment to the bill,
so that the penaly for the first and second Of
| lenses would be only fine. The amendment
was unanimously adopted.
NJ. SIeece explained the measure, urging that
/ local control and high taxation the best
means of curtailing the sale Of whisky.
| Mr. Harrell opposed it for the reason that it
| would work hardship upon the people. 1t was
| class legislation to favor the rich A man here
| in the heart of this city might be able to pay
/ 500 license while the man In the other part OF
| the city could not afford to pay it, and m an
could afford to pay $500 in any small town or in
the country. This bill would operate alike upon
the distiler. the brewer, the wholesale and the
retail dealer, so thatif in acounty like Dearborn
| where thore were a great many distieries, they
| should vote against the sale of whisky it would
| drive those industries out of the county.
| Mr.. Beaslv objected to several features Of the
| bill, among others that provision regarding
special election for saloon keepers, thus giving
them an undue prominence. No publication Of
application for license required, and nc
remonstrance is provided for IL does not re
quire the applicant to state with certainty tn;
place where the LIQUOR is to be sold. Because o
the manner in which the bill is drawn the cour
would so construe it, in connection with tn
present law, that there would he no prohibition
of the sale to minors
MIR Ibach argued against the local contro
feature of the bill. The State might with eaua
reason permit local election on every othe
question.